ÿWPC5 … 0VU<q’­ ? BO D3l ÆŸ 0Ce 0(¨ AMÐ D+ H X UNh %¶ ¼ 0(¼ w@ä 4$ 0J8 0T‚ 0^Ö 0h4 0rœ 0| 0†Š 0 1u  0dB)yDC¢ AMåU*2ã\v~?vÓ½ AOÆß 0D¥ D/é B<ujÿÿ:Default ParaÓ  ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ€XXXÔÔQ€ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔô\  `$Times NewRoman' IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE *Marilyn Hathaway 0 .   ÿÿText8 d'ÿÿÈÈÈÈdxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2P$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’ A<< cÿÿ'ÈÈÈÈdxdÿÿText93|x7(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ %&D'D()D*D+,V-.Ó€Ô¡¨ ÿÿ$2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€ 'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌFebruary€20,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔßR€(*'A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌSEPTEMBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÓ  ÓÌALEJANDROS€GAUNA,Ìà àà àAPPELLANTÌÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.C.A.€NO.€à à01C01„9512„CC„00422Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMAURY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHONORABLE€WILLIAM€B.€CAINÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(PROBATION€HEARING)ÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,Ìà àà àAPPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌòòÌFOR€THE€APPELLANTóóà àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEÌÌÔ€XÔóóShara€A.€Flacyà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌÔ% ‡ ÔWilliam€C.€Brightà àÔ%†Ôà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%† µÔÓC€ € H@L!œCÓ22nd€Judicial€Districtà àà àà àà àà àM.€Allison€ThompsonÌ122€No.€2nd€Streetà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€1208à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌPulaski,€TN€38478à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€378243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àT.€Michael€BottomsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLee€BaileyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à10€Public€Square,€Box€1619Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àColumbia,€TN€€38401ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€_______________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÇò òÔ€ŠÔOPINIONó óÌà àThe€appellant,€Alejandros€Gauna,€has€appealed€as€of€right€from€a€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€Maury€County€in€revoking€the€appellantððs€probation.€ÏThe€appellant€presents€two€issues€for€consideration:€€(1)€€the€trial€court€committed€errorÏin€allowing€hearsay€statements€of€a€Georgia€probation€officer,€who€was€not€present,€intoÏevidence€at€a€revocation€hearing;€and€(2)€€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€the€appellantÏto€serve€the€remainder€of€his€sentence€and€not€considering€an€alternative€sentence.€ÏAfter€a€review€of€the€record€in€this€cause€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìà àThe€salient€facts€in€this€cause€are€on€November€2,€1992,€the€appellant,€AlejandrosÏGauna,€pled€guilty€to€the€included€offense€of€sexual€battery€before€the€Circuit€Court€forÏMaury€County,€Tennessee.€€The€appellant€was€sentenced€to€two€years€in€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Correction€and€placed€on€immediate€supervised€probation.€€According€toÏthe€testimony€of€probation€officer,€Laurie€Wade,€Tennessee€Department€of€Probation,€atÏthe€revocation€hearing€of€September€12,€1995,€the€appellant€was€allowed€to€transferÏsupervision€to€Hickman€County,€Tennessee,€his€place€of€residence.€€In€May€of€1993,€theÏappellant€was€granted€permission€by€the€Department€of€Probation€to€transferÏsupervision,€via€interstate€compact€agreement,€to€Effingham€County,€Georgia.€€UnderÏthis€agreement€Georgia€would€assume€the€responsibility€to€supervise€the€appellantððsÏperiod€of€probation.€€During€the€fifteen€(15)€months€of€appellantððs€probation,€he€wasÏtransferred€twice€and€was€allowed€interstate€travel€in€pursuit€of€employment€as€a€truckÏdriver.€€In€February€1994,€Ms.€Wade€was€put€on€notice,€via€correspondence€fromÏGeorgia,€that€the€appellant€had€moved€from€his€local€address,€without€knowledge€orÏpermission€of€Judy€Zittrouer,€Georgia€probation€officer.€€The€supervision€was€returned€toÏTennessee€for€consideration€of€an€arrest€warrant.€€In€addition€to€absconding,€theÏappellant€had€been€questioned€by€Georgia€authorities€concerning€allegations€of€childÏrape€and€molestation.€€Pursuant€to€a€request€of€Ms.€Wade,€the€Circuit€Court€for€MauryÏCounty€issued€an€arrest€warrant€for€the€appellant€on€March€1,€1994.€€The€appellant€wasÏarrested€in€Texas€in€July€of€1995€and€agreed€to€be€extradited€back€to€Tennessee.€Ìà àOn€September€12,€1995,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€to€determine€the€validity€ofÏthe€Stateððs€allegation€of€absconding.€€At€this€hearing,€Ms.€Wade€testified€as€to€theÏasserted€violations€of€probation€communicated€to€her€by€a€Georgia€probation€officer€viaÏwritten€correspondence€and€orally.€€The€appellant€objected€to€this€testimony,€that€is€theÏadmissibility€of€these€oral€statements€and€documentary€evidence,€on€the€basis€of€hearsay,Ïthus€violating€the€confrontation€clause€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€trial€courtÏoverruled€these€objections.Ìò òÓ  ÓCONFRONTATION€ISSUEÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€proper€standard€for€review€for€a€probation€revocation€on€appeal€is€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€order€for€this€Court€to€findÏan€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€trial€courtððs€discretion,€it€must€be€established€that€theÏrecord€contains€no€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€court€thatÏa€violation€of€the€conditions€of€probation€has€occurred.€òò€Harkins,€supraóó.€€At€theÏrevocation€hearing,€the€State€offered€two€out€of€court€statements€which€were€objectedÏto€by€the€appellantððs€attorney.€€As€to€the€molestation€testimony,€the€trial€court€did€notÏconsider€this€testimony€in€his€decision€stating€there€was€too€little€information€regardingÏthe€charge€with€no€subsequent€conviction.€€TRH,€page€5.€€Since€the€trial€court€did€notÏconsider€this€testimony€in€making€its€decision,€any€error€would€be€harmless.Ìà àThe€second€ð ðhearsayðð€statement€concerned€the€documents€and€letters€receivedÏby€Ms.€Laurie€Wade€in€her€official€capacity€as€the€original€probation€officer€for€theÏappellant.€€It€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€appellant€was€aware€of€the€reportingÍprocedures€in€Georgia€were€the€same€as€Tennessee.€€The€appellantððs€attorney€madeÏtimely€objections€to€the€information€in€the€Georgia€letters€on€the€basis€that€suchÏtestimony€violated€his€right€to€confront€the€witnesses€offering€proof€against€him.€€BothÏthe€U.S.€Supreme€Court€and€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€have€established€that€aÏdefendant€is€afforded€minimum€due€process€rights€including€a€conditional€right€toÏconfront€witnesses€against€him€in€a€probation€revocation€hearing.€€òòGagno€v.€Scarpellióó,Ï93€S.Ct.€1756€(1973).€€Our€Supreme€Court€adopted€and€expounded€upon€this€idea€inÏòòState€v.€Wade,€óó863€S.W.2d€406€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€òòWade,€supra,€óóthe€Supreme€CourtÏadopted€a€two„prong€test€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€a€drug€test€deemed€to€beÏð ðhearsay.ðð€€The€Court€held€that€the€test€should€be€excluded€because€there€was€noÏshowing€of€good€cause€as€to€why€the€testing€official€could€not€be€there,€and€there€wasÏno€way€to€assume€the€reliability€of€the€test.€€òòID€óóat€410.€€This€same€issue€was€addressed€byÏthe€Tennessee€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€òòState€v.€Rickeróó,€875€S.W.2d€687€(Tenn.€Cr.ÏApp.€1994).€€Judge€Tipton€speaking€for€this€Court€held:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ X ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓà àð ðIn€considering€the€future€impact€of€òòWadeóó,€we€note€that€theÏSupreme€Court€relied€in€large€measure€upon€òòWilson€v.€Stateóó,€70€Md.ÏApp.€527,€521€A2d€1257€(1987).€€In€òòWilsonóó€the€court€concludedÏthat€the€trial€courtððs€specific€finding€that€it€would€be€costÏprohibitive€to€call€an€out„of„state€technician€to€testify€constitutedÏgood€cause€for€not€requiring€the€technicianððs€personal€appearance.€ÏIt€quoted€from€òòGagon€v.€Scarpelli,€supra,€óó€with€cautionary€noteÏabout€a€probationerððs€right€to€cross„examine:ÌÌÓ X ÓÓ ` ‹XÓððAn€additional€comment€is€warranted€with€respect€to€theÏrights€to€present€witnesses€and€to€confront€and€cross„examineÏadverse€witnesses.€€Petitionerððs€greatest€concern€is€with€theÏdifficulty€and€the€expense€of€procuring€witnesses€from€perhapsÏthousands€of€miles€away.€€While€in€some€cases€there€is€simply€noÏadequate€alternative€to€live€testimony,€we€emphasize€that€we€didÏnot€in€òòMorrissey€v.€Breweróó,€92€S.Ct.€2593€(1972)€intend€to€prohibitÏuse€where€appropriated€of€the€conventional€substitutes€for€liveÏtestimony,€including€affidavits,€depositions,€and€documentaryÏevidenceðð.ððÌÓ  ÓÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÓ` ÜŒ ‹X€%Ø'Óà àThus,€there€is€not€an€absolute€ban€on€the€presentation€of€hearsay€at€a€probationÏhearing.€€The€law€recognizes€that€the€very€nature€of€a€probation€revocation€hearing€mayÏnecessitate€a€lesser€degree€of€formality€and€inflexibility€than€a€criminal€prosecutionÏwhere€guilt€or€innocence€will€be€decided.€€òòBlack€v.€Romanoóó,€105€S.Ct.€2254€(1985).€ÏNow€we€must€determine€did€the€admissibility€of€the€Georgia€letters€or€documents€violateÏthe€two„prong€test€of€òòWadeóó?€€The€first€question€is€whether€or€not€there€was€good€causeÏshown€as€to€why€the€Georgia€probation€officer€could€not€be€in€court.€€The€trial€courtÏwhen€making€its€ruling€stated€that€interstate€agreements€would€be€impossible€to€operateÍwere€every€out„of„state€official€required€to€appear€and€testify€at€the€revocation€hearings.€ÏWhile€this€is€not€an€individual€finding€of€good€cause€as€to€why€this€particular€officialÏcould€not€be€in€court,€it€can€be€considered€a€valid€argument€in€showing€that€the€veryÏnature€of€interstate€agreements€make€live€testimony€often€impractical.€€SpecialÏconsideration€should€be€given€to€the€idea€that€interstate€transfer€for€the€purpose€ofÏsupervised€probation€complies€with€the€goals€of€the€sentencing€act€of€1989.€€In€this€caseÏthe€appellant€chose€to€transfer€to€Georgia,€under€the€same€Tennessee€conditions,€toÏmaintain€employment.€€The€appellant€acknowledge€he€understood€the€obligation€toÏreport€to€Georgia€officials€as€if€he€had€remained€in€Tennessee.€€We€believe€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€of€good€cause€in€this€case€is€sufficient€under€the€language€of€òòRicker,Ïsupra.óóÌà àThe€second€question€is€one€of€reliability.€€Even€if€good€cause€is€shown,€the€trial€court,Ïunder€òòWadeóó,€must€find€that€the€evidence€offered€is€reliable.€€In€this€case€the€StateÏestablished€that€the€appellant€left€Georgia€without€permission.€€The€facts€are€not€inÏdispute.€€The€appellant,€himself,€explains€that€he€left€Georgia€without€permission,€went€toÏTexas€and€eventually€to€Mexico€for€his€grandmotherððs€funeral.€€Therefore,€theÏappellantððs€own€testimony€proved€the€reliability€of€the€information€provided€in€theÏGeorgia€probation€officerððs€letter.€€òòState€v.€Richardsonóó,€Blount€County,€No.€03C01„9503„CR„0005€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€at€Knoxville,€August€7,€1995.Ìà àFinally,€the€State€argues€that€even€if€the€documents€are€hearsay,€they€could€beÏproperly€allowed€under€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€803(6)€exception€to€hearsay.€ÏThis€rule€requires€an€authentication€of€these€Georgia€documents€through€the€testimonyÏof€ð ðcustodian€or€other€qualified€witness.ðð€€We€hold€the€TRE€803(6)€Records€ofÏRegularly€Conducted€Activity€hearsay€exception€would€not€apply€to€the€facts€in€thisÍrecord.€€We€believe€that€such€documents€would€more€properly€be€admitted€intoÏevidence€under€TRE€Rule€803(8)€Public€Records€and€Reports.€€This€rule€states:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ X ÒÒ ` ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓÓ ` ¸ ŒXÓà àð ðUnless€the€source€of€information€or€the€method€orÏcircumstances€of€preparation€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness,€records,Ïreports,€statements,€or€data€compilations€in€any€form€of€public€offices€orÏagencies€setting€forth€the€activities€of€these€office€or€agency€or€mattersÏobserved€pursuant€to€a€duty€imposed€by€law€as€to€which€matters€thereÏwas€a€duty€to€report,€excluding,€however,€matters€observed€by€policeÏofficers€and€other€law€enforcement€officers.ððÌÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÓ` ÜŒ ‹X€%Ø'Óà àThe€Interstate€Compact€Agreement€is€silent€on€the€issue,€but€it€is€reasonable€toÏbelieve€that€the€reports€of€probation€officers€€in€other€states€would€be€given€the€sameÏweight€as€the€reports€of€Tennessee€probation€officers.€€Probation€papers,€once€filed€inÏcourt,€become€matters€of€public€knowledge.€€There€is€substantial€evidence€in€the€recordÏthat€the€Georgia€letters€are€reliable€and€thus€the€second€prong€of€òòWade€óóhas€beenÏsatisfied.€€The€trial€courtððs€ruling€is€affirmed.Ìò òÓ  ÓALTERNATIVE€SENTENCINGÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€appellant€would€argue€that€he€is€entitled€to€an€alternative€sentence€in€lieu€ofÏincarceration€and€the€trial€court€committed€error€in€failing€to€consider€such€alternatives.ÏWhile€the€appellant€did€break€a€condition€of€this€probation€by€not€reporting€and€goingÏto€Mexico€to€visit€a€sick€grandmother,€he€would€argue€that€the€measure€of€hisÏnoncompliance€is€slight€under€the€circumstances.€€The€appellant€would€further€argueÏthat€he€was€on€probation€for€a€long€period€of€time€and€was€still€a€suitable€candidate€forÏalternative€relief.€€Upon€rendering€its€judgment,€the€trial€court€did€not€set€out€in€theÏrecord€any€reasons€for€rejecting€the€request€for€alternative€sentences.€€Therefore€theÏstandard€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Anno.Ïðð€40„35„401(d).€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€Ordinarily€for€a€òòde€novoóóÏreview€by€this€Court€we€would€have€the€benefit€of€the€evidence€at€the€sentencingÏhearing,€the€pre„sentence€report,€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€forÍsentencing€alternatives,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€activity,€anyÏmitigating€and€enhancement€factors,€any€statements€made€by€the€appellant€in€his€ownÏbehalf€and€the€appellantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Anno.€ððÏ40„35„103€and€ðð€40„35„210€(1996€&€1996€Supp.).€€Thus€we€must€look€at€the€entireÏrecord€to€determine€if€the€appellant€is€entitled€to€a€second€consideration€for€alternativeÏrelief.€€Ìà àThe€first€four€considerations€were€applied€by€the€trial€court€at€the€granting€of€theÏappellantððs€application€for€probation.€€Thus€this€Court€will€consider€if€any€mitigating€andÏenhancement€factors,€any€testimony€made€by€the€appellant€in€the€revocation€hearingÏand€ÌÌdid€the€appellant€meet€his€burden€any€further€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€ÏThe€Court€finds€in€mitigation€the€appellant€went€to€see€a€sick€grandmother€in€Mexico,Ïreturned€to€Texas€and€voluntarily€returned€to€Tennessee€to€resolve€the€matter.€€As€toÏenhancement€the€Court€finds€the€appellant€willfully€violated€the€generous€conditions€ofÏprobation€in€absconding€to€Texas€without€notice€to€his€probation€officer,€left€theÏcountry€and€was€missing€for€18€months.€€As€to€the€appellantððs€potential€for€rehabilitationÏor€treatment,€the€appellant€is€not€a€suitable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€in€thatÏð ðmeasures€less€restrictive€than€confinement€has€recently€been€applied€unsuccessfully€toÏthe€appellant,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Anno.€ðð€40„35„103€(1)(C).€€The€appellantððs€deliberateÏviolation€of€the€conditions€of€probation€outweighs€any€consideration€of€furtherÏalternative€sentencing.€€The€Court€would€note€with€a€strong€degree€of€probability€thatÏthe€appellant€will€receive€his€request€for€alternative€sentencing,€that€is€probation,€underÏTenn.€Code€Anno.€ðð€40„35„501(a)(3).€€We€find€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€its€decision.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌÓÓPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÔ€XÔÌÓÓÌ